SPECIAL INVESTIGATION : DESIGN OF AN INTAKE BELLMOUTH
“This is neither a
Gordon P. Blair, Senior Associate, Prof Blair & Associates and
W. Melvin Cahoon, Senior Engineer-Specialist, Volvo Penta of the Americas,
discuss how to optimise the design of an engine air intake bellmouth and the
use of advanced software as an aid to the process
Best bell
T
he design of a bellmouth at the end of the intake tract of
a reciprocating internal combustion engine is not a topic
that has ever occupied much space within the pages of the
technical literature. One could come to the not unnatural
conclusion that it cannot be a topic of any real significance. That
viewpoint, right or wrong, is very much at odds with the efforts made
by the designers of the nacelles for aircraft gas-turbine engines who
put much experimental and theoretical effort into the design shape of
the leading edge of their engine pods.
Speaking personally (writes Blair), I have always been curious
about the proper design method for intake bellmouths, indeed I have
been known to dangerously pontificate about it, ‘dangerously’ in
the sense that my real experimental or theoretical knowledge of that
design process is ‘dangerously’ inadequate. Behind the writing of this
paper, with the modern availability of computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) and with the expert efforts of my co-author using the FLUENT
code [1], not only can real design information be provided on the
topic but also our mutual curiosity has been satisfied. We present this
here both for your interest and for numerical assimilation into your
design systems.
DERIVATION OF DISCHARGE COEFFICIENTS
The effectiveness of the flow regime at any boundary at the end of a
pipe in an engine is expressed numerically as a ‘discharge coefficient’,
i.e., a Coefficient of Discharge, or CD. In history, and even today, they
were/are measured experimentally using a steady flow rig, much as
shown in Fig.1.
The pipe-end boundary under examination, in this case an intake
bellmouth, is placed before a settling tank/plenum and a steady flow
34
of air is sucked through it into the tank by a vacuum pump. Typically,
most production/commercial rigs like this will induce a tank pressure
some 28 inches of water below atmospheric pressure, which is a
pressure ratio, PR, of some 1.07. As you will find, the numerical value
of the discharge coefficient is a considerable function of pressure ratio
and, as many pipe end boundaries are exposed to pressure ratios up
to the sonic flow condition (where PR is virtually 2), a rig which can
generate a maximum pressure ratio of just 1.07 is just not adequate.
However, as an intake bellmouth is normally exposed to pressure
ratios of 1.1 or less, this type of commercially-available experimental
rig would suffice for that purpose. At The Queen’s University of Belfast,
at an earlier point in history, we had quite superb experimental
facilities and could measure most pipe end boundary conditions up to
the sonic threshold PR values approaching 2.0 [2,3].
Traditionally, in the literature, one measured the mass flow rate,
as seen in Fig.1, and noted that as mdot (g/s). Some rather carelessly
computed it merely as a volume flow rate. In the particular case of
the bellmouth, the researcher then computed a theoretical mass flow,
“I have been
known to dangerously
pontificate about
intake bellmouths”
Fig.1 Measurement of Discharge Coefficients
tmdot (g/s), through the pipe area Ap, at the experimental pressure
ratio PR, i.e., Po/Ps, using some such theory as the “St Venant”
equation, or other subsonic nozzle theory. That researcher then
conventionally quoted the discharge coefficient CD as the ratio of the
measured to the theoretical mass flow rate, i.e., mdot/tmdot.
A useful number, maybe, but one that is well-nigh useless for
application into an unsteady flow simulation of the flow in a real
engine, assuming that one expects accuracy from that computation.
Some readers may well be alarmed to read that you can still pay
megabucks for a theoretical engine simulation that precisely uses that
particular approach. We will not belabour you with a full description
of why there is a correct/incorrect way to derive CD values, which
are accurately applicable within an engine simulation for it has been
thoroughly covered already [2,3].
The ‘correct’ way to derive CD values is exemplified in Figs.2-4, in
conjunction with Fig.1. In Fig.1, the illustrated theoretical contention
is that the flow will form a ‘vena contracta’ of area Ac inside the
pipe somewhat less than the full pipe area Ap. The ‘actual’ discharge
coefficient CD is then defined as Ac/Ap and a theoretical analysis must
be created to compute that Ac value at any given pressure ratio [2,3].
To illustrate the reality of this flow regime, Fig.2 shows the outcome
of a computation by the FLUENT CFD code for the case of inflow into
the sharp-edged plain pipe from the atmosphere (at 1.0 atm and 25
degC or 298 K). The Fig.2 shows the computed contours of pressure
for the flow process. That there is indeed a ‘vena contracta’ is evident
by the pressure drop from the entry at Po to Pc followed by pressure
recovery to Ps at the pipe exit. It is worth mentioning that the pressure
ratio PR is indeed Po/Ps and that Ps value is determined as an average
Fig.2 Thermodynamics of flow into a plain pipe end
simple nor a
straightforward
computation process”
of the pressure in all of the CFD computation cells across the duct at
the ‘Ps measuring station’ and is not simply the atmospheric pressure
divided by the plenum pressure. This average computation pressure Ps
corresponds precisely with that obtained in an actual experiment by
the ‘manometer pressure gauge’ shown in Fig.1.
Further evidence is given in Fig.3 by the computed temperature
contours for the same process with a drop of 8 degC to the ‘vena
contracta’ and a recovery of 3 degC by the end of the pipe. The most
significant evidence is provided by Fig.4, showing nozzle-like flow
from zero velocity at the entry to a high particle velocity (as Mach
number) of 0.3 at the vena contracta, a still region surrounding it, and
a reduction of velocity with diffusion to the pipe exit. That being the
case, then that is how it must be theoretically analysed in order to
derive a realistic discharge coefficient.
The theoretical situation is sketched in Figs.1 and 2. The theory, see
the temperature-entropy diagram as an inset to Fig.2, must prescribe
isentropic nozzle flow from the opening pressure Po through a vena
contracta of area Ac, to be followed by a non-isentropic diffusing flow
with entropy gain and pressure recovery to a pressure Ps at the full
pipe area Ap, the upshot of which is a computed value of mass flow
rate tmdot (g/s) which must correspond precisely with the measured
value of mass flow rate mdot (g/s). The ‘actual’ [2,3] discharge
coefficient CD is then calculated as Ac/Ap.
This is neither a simple nor a straightforward computation process.
Firstly, the theoretical equations are all non-linear polynomial
functions of pressure, temperature, density, and particle velocity.
No single solution is a direct solution, but the theoretician must
continuously vary the value of Ac in the computation until a unique
value of Ac produces precisely the measured values of Ps and mdot.
t
The iterative process to get there is not for the mathematically faint-
t
Fig.3 Temperature flow profiles into a plain pipe end
35
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION : DESIGN OF AN INTAKE BELLMOUTH
Fig.4 Velocity flow profiles into a plain pipe end
hearted and it is little wonder that many a major engine simulation
package supplier has shied away from this, the only approach which
will produce accuracy of engine simulation when the attained
CD values are re-employed to help compute pipe end boundary
conditions [2].
THE BELLMOUTH DESIGNS TO BE ANALYSED
In Fig.5 is sketched, to scale, the bellmouths which will be analysed by
the FLUENT CFD software. The first is a simple semi-ball wrap-round
radius installed at the end of the pipe. The second is a bellmouth with
an aerofoil profile (NACA type) and the third is a bellmouth with an
elliptical profile [5].
All bellmouths are characterised by their basic data for “Type”,
length L, exit diameter De, entry diameter Di, and entry corner radius
Rc. The “Type” can be a sharp edged plain pipe (PP), a simple radius
(RAD), an aerofoil profile bellmouth (AER), or an elliptical profile
bellmouth (ELL). A wide range of dimensions for all such bellmouths
were tested and most of the more significant ones are reported upon
below. Before that point in the discussion, look at Figs.6 and 7, which
show the computed Mach number (particle velocity) plots for the
simple radius (as RAD-46-23-35-6 of Fig.5) and the ellipse profile (as
ELL_23-23-49-3 of Fig.5). The simple radius in Fig.6 shows less of the
pronounced vena contracta so evident in Fig.4 for the plain pipe, but
the elliptical profile in Fig.7 has almost no vena contracta so smooth is
the flow entry. A more fundamental message, reflecting the increasing
area Ac, is also given on those diagrams. In Fig.4, the sharp edged pipe
case, the CD is 0.5672 and the measured mass flow rate is 30.023 g/s.
In Fig.6, where there is a simple radius as the bellmouth, the CD is
now 0.719 and the measured mass flow rate is 34.83 g/s. In Fig.7, the
“There is a considerable
benefit in mass flow rate
by the addition of even
a simple radius”
36
Fig.5 Nomenclature and shape of various bellmouths
more sophisticated bellmouth case with an elliptical profile, the CD is
0.743 and the measured mass flow rate is 36.15 g/s. The fundamental
message is that there is a considerable benefit in either CD (27%) or
mass flow rate (16%) by the addition of even a simple radius at a pipe
end to make a bellmouth, but the gain in CD above that simplicity to
an optimum may be only 4% more.
THE MEASURED MASS FLOW RATE
In the discussion thus far, there is reference to a measured mass flow
rate (mdot) into the bellmouth when actually it is really referring to
a mass flow rate as computed by the computational code FLUENT
modelling the bellmouth attached to a settling tank as shown in
Fig.1. In short, the CFD code is modelling the intake bellmouth and
the entire apparatus as a replica for an actual experiment with real
hardware instead. Is this justified?
At The Queen’s University of Belfast (QUB), much experimental
work was conducted in this area (2,3) and one series of experiments
did measure the inflow of air into a plain ended pipe and a simple
radiused bellmouth, the physical dimensions of which were identical
to those described here as PP-46-23-23-0 and RAD-46-23-35-6. It was
conducted as a final-year project by a most capable student, H.B. Lau
[3]. In short, we can now directly compare the CD values as measured
by Mr Lau and as computed by FLUENT. They are shown in Fig.8.
The correspondence between the measured and CFD-computed CD
values are very close both numerically and as a trend with pressure
ratio. You will observe that the CD values are indeed a considerable
function of pressure ratio. You will also note that at QUB we could not
exceed an experimental pressure ratio of about 1.3 even though the
apparatus at QUB had a flow capacity at least 5 times more than most
commercially available flow rigs. However, for an intake bellmouth
Fig.6 Velocity flow profiles into a radiused pipe end
“The elliptical
profile comes out
as the winner over
the aerofoil profile”
that is not really a major issue as the instantaneous pressure ratio at
an actual engine bellmouth during the peak of reflection of the intake
pulse will rarely exceed 1.1. However, even at low pressure ratios
the CD values will vary by 20% over a PR range from 1.04 to 1.1 and
therefore cannot be considered as a constant. On this evidence, the
FLUENT code can be trusted to provide us with an accurate prediction
of air flow rates into intake bellmouths.
In Fig.9 are shown the (computed by FLUENT) mass flow rates mdot
for the same plain pipe and the same simple radius bellmouth. Both
are also a function of pressure ratio and here the difference between
them remains at a near constant 16% at any given PR value. Lau [3]
also quotes measured mass flow rates for the plain pipe and the simple
6 mm radius and those calculated here by CFD agree very closely with
those measured, as seen in Fig.9.
DISCHARGE COEFFICIENTS FOR BELLMOUTHS
We will now discuss the results of the FLUENT CFD analysis of the
fluid mechanics of the 3D flow and the analysis of its output data to
acquire the ‘actual’ discharge coefficients. In Fig.10 is shown the CD
values for a range of elliptical and aerofoil profile bellmouths and
also for the simple radius bellmouth RAD-46-23-35-6. All profiled
bellmouths have the same exit diameter De of 23 mm, some have
lengths L of 23 or 46 mm, some have entry diameters Di of 40, 46 or
49 mm, and all have a corner radiis Rc of 3 mm. It can be seen that
all profiled bellmouths exhibit a step increase in CD over the simple
radius bellmouth but all lie rather closely together so that it is visually
Fig.7 Velocity flow profiles into a bellmouth pipe end
difficult to separate them.
The visualisation problem is rectified in Fig.11, where the change
in CD for all profiled bellmouths is expressed as a percentage over
that for the simple radius bellmouth. It becomes apparent that the
improvement in CD is very much a function of the entry diameter Di
and is less of a function of either the profile or the length L, which
rationale is echoed by the colour and symbol coding of the several
graphs. This is but a small selection of all of the bellmouths studied
but showing them all would merely provide further confusion, not
enhanced clarity.
While there is not much in it, the elliptical profile comes out as the
winner over the aerofoil profile. In the all-important pressure ratio
PR range up to 1.1 one can conclude that the best bellmouth has an
advantage in CD terms of some 3.5% over the simplest bellmouth.
In design terms, one can usefully conclude that “short and fat” is
best with an optimum length criterion L of one diameter De, and
an optimum entry diameter Di of some 2.13 times the exit diameter
De, and with an elliptical profile. Although the investigations are not
presented here, the corner radius Rc can be usefully designed as 0.08
times the entry diameter Di.
To illustrate the potential effect on engine performance, as air mass
t
flow breathed is potentially engine torque produced, in Fig.12 is
t
Fig.8 Measured and computed CD data at pipe ends
37

Fig.9 Measured and computed airflow rates at pipe ends
shown the change of mass flow rate for all of the profiled bellmouths
over that of the simple radius bellmouth. The change is expressed as a
percentage. In the relevant pressure ratio PR band up to 1.1, the best
bellmouths are those that are “short and fat” with the elliptical profiled
bellmouth ELL-23-23-49-3 hailed as the winner. But the winning
margin is very much a “short head” as its advantage over simplicity is
a mere 1.5%. However, as that might just be an extra 1.5 hp per 100
hp, we would sooner have it as not!
CD DATA APPLIED WITH AN ENGINE SIMULATION
While the graphs and discussion above may be useful as an aid to
understanding of the air flow behaviour at intake bellmouths, it is
numbers that engineers need to be able to generally employ in design
or, perhaps more specifically, within an engine simulation during the
computation of pipe end boundary conditions. For the specific case
in question, at the intake bellmouth, the reader will naturally think
of it as an “inflow” process. Actually, this is an “outflow case” as the
air is “outflowing” from a ‘plenum’, i.e., the atmosphere, through a
‘restriction’, i.e., the bellmouth, to a pipe, i.e., the intake pipe leading
to the engine. For more theoretical information on the reverse flow
case of “inflow”, i.e., spitback, you should read a textbook [2] but this
common phenomenon you have seen elsewhere in the engine as the
exit of particles of exhaust gas at the end of an exhaust pipe!
In Fig.13 is shown some of the previous CD graph data replotted
up to a pressure ratio just below 1.4. This range of pressure ratio
covers the pressure wave reflection behaviour at the end of an intake
pipe for naturally aspirated engines where that end either meets the
atmosphere itself or the conditions of an intake airbox. The individual
graphs of discharge coefficient for the plain ended pipe, the simple
“The best bellmouths
are those that are short
and fat with the
elliptical the winner”
38
Fig.10 CD data for intake pipe bellmouths
radius bellmouth and the elliptical profile bellmouth are curve-fitted
with a third order polynomial and the equations are printed at the top
of Fig.13. The “y” value is the CD and the “x” value is the pressure
ratio PR. The quality of the curve fit is visibly good.
However, if the CD line is required within an engine simulation
for a bellmouth fitted at an intake pipe where there is located a
“restrictor” diameter, to be followed by a pipe, or more usually a
diffuser pipe, as described in our previous articles [6,7], then a CD-PR
equation only fitted over a pressure ratio up to 1.4 is not very helpful.
Hence, the CD line for the best elliptical profile bellmouth, ELL-23-23-
49-3, as graphed in Fig.10, is curve-fitted over the full pressure ratio
range up to 1.8 and that trend line is expressed below as,
This information is presented on the assumption that the designer
would wish to use the best bellmouth design possible at the entry to
the restrictor/diffuser and then simulate it accordingly. This same CD
trend line is also applicable to another higher pressure ratio situation
where a bellmouth is used and that is at the entry to the compressor
of a turbocharger or a supercharger, particularly if that entry is
geometrically restricted by the mandates of some racing engine
classification.
This information is also presented on the assumption that these
CD-PR equations will be applied into an accurate engine simulation
where the theory used therein for its mathematical, gas dynamic and
thermodynamic replay is that described briefly above and thoroughly
in a textbook [2]. If that is not the case then the trend-line data in
Fig.13, or the equation above, is meaningless and should not be used,
i.e., “garbage in is garbage out”.
DYNAMIC FLOW AT THE BELLMOUTH
The CFD analysis of the flow by FLUENT [1] and the subsequent
analysis of that flow computation to determine the CD coefficient
[2,3] is conducted under steady flow conditions, just as if it was
experimentally executed on a flow bench. However, the actual
bellmouth is placed on an engine which breathes most unsteadily
and so the pressure ratio across the bellmouth varies with crankangle
and the air particles will not only enter that intake pipe from the
atmosphere but will also reverse (spitback) during various periods
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION : DESIGN OF AN INTAKE BELLMOUTH
Fig.11 CD variations at intake bellmouths Fig.12 Airflow rate variations at intake bellmouths
“Whereas a 1D simulation which are fully described elsewhere [2]. As the G50 engine had a 38
mm diameter intake duct, then new bellmouths for both the simple
will take but minutes to
radius type and the elliptical profile type were designed [5] and their
dimensions are shown labelled on Fig.14. In Fig.14 is presented
snapshots of their particular particle velocity characteristics (as Mach
complete, a 1D-3D co- number contours) at an engine speed of 7000 rpm. A plain-ended
intake pipe is also included in this co-simulation computation series
for its curiosity value.
simulation can take days” In Fig.14a for each of the pipe end conditions tested is a snapshot
at a particular crankangle of the “outflow” process from the
atmosphere (to normal folk it is obviously an inflow process and
during the cycle [2]. That, of course, is what an accurate engine only thermodynamic pedants such as your authors would consider
simulation computes, crankangle by crankangle, but normally using it otherwise) at the point where maximum particle velocity is taking
what is theoretically described as a 1D (one-dimensional) procedure. place at the bellmouth. The similarity of velocity contour (as Mach
In recent times, and with the advent of ever more sophisticated number) with the steady flow pictures of Figs.4, 6 and 7 is very
3D (three-dimensional or CFD) codes, it is possible to co-simulate apparent. These similarities lend some credence to the oft-used phrase
where elements of an engine ducting are segregated and computed by of “quasi-steady flow” as used to describe the conventional theoretical
FLUENT (say) and the remainder of the engine ducting and cylinders approach in unsteady gas dynamics, which approach is founded in
t
t
are computed by the 1D engine simulation. The 1D engine simulation
then feeds the instantaneous thermodynamic state and gas dynamic
conditions to the CFD computation at either end of the segregated
region and similarly receives updated instantaneous data in return
with which to continue its 1D calculations. This is referred to as “co-
simulation” and is a most powerful tool to examine regions of an
engine ducting where the 1D simulation is theoretically weak, such as
at branches in pipes or at an exhaust collector junction where the flow
is decidedly three-dimensional.
These computations are best conducted on high performance
computer workstations. Whereas a 1D engine simulation will take but
minutes to complete on a modern fast PC, a 1D-3D co-simulation can
take many hours, even days, to conclude.
In this case, we have prepared a co-simulation by FLUENT of the
entire bellmouth including a short segment of the intake pipe beyond
which the 1D engine simulation takes over. The engine used within
the 1D simulation is the Seeley-Matchless G50 racing motorcycle
engine of yesteryear, the geometry and performance characteristics of Fig.13 Curve fitted CD data for intake bellmouths
39
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION : DESIGN OF AN INTAKE BELLMOUTH

Fig.17 Loss of CD by a rectangular bellmouth
Fig.15 CD variations for bellmouth edge geometries
experiments’. The bellmouth is created by a simple 6 mm radius
“The computed CD
results for the simple
rectangular bellmouth
are worse”
computational difficulties for any CFD code.
Quite irrespective of the above caveats, the computed CD results for
the simple rectangular bellmouth are worse than that for the simple
radius RAD-46-23-35-6 and, as a glance at Fig.10 will confirm, this
simple radius bellmouth was a numerical step below all of the profiled
bellmouths. As it is rather difficult to design a rectangular profiled
bellmouth, it will inevitably have a rectangular entry, the general

“There is a message around the perimeter, making it the rectangular equivalent of the
round pipe RAD-46-23-35-6. This rectangular bellmouth is labelled as
conclusion must be that rectangular intake ducts and rectangular
intake bellmouths should be avoided by design if at all possible.

Fig.14a Dynamic particle

inflow during co-simulation
Fig.14b Dynamic particle
‘spitback’ during co-simulation
here for those who install REC-29.878_14.939-6.
The FLUENT CFD computations are run at varying pressure ratios
That the flow regime has the asymmetric fluid mechanic difficulties
described in the literature [8,9] is confirmed in Fig.18, where the
up to 1.7 and the CD values are analysed at each PR from the mass computed (particle velocity) Mach number profiles across each axis
the notion that unsteady flow is but a sequence of differing steady flow
processes conducted over very short time intervals.
fuel injectors pointing flow data determined by CFD [2,3]. The results of these calculations
are seen in Fig.17, but they might have been anticipated by reading
and at a section 6 mm inside the entry are illustrated.

In Fig.14b are the movie snapshots at a particular crankangle at

the peak of the reverse flow process, commonly called “spitback”,
and again your pedantic authors will tell you that this is an “inflow”
process to a large plenum called ‘the atmosphere’. The particle flow
entering the atmosphere is more pronouncedly strong for the weakest
bellmouth, i.e., the plain-ended pipe, and vice-versa for the elliptical
profile bellmouth. Indeed, it is so strong at the plain pipe end that
it has formed a toroidal vortex (smoke ring!) at the pipe end. Such a
into intake bellmouths”
are somewhat inconclusive, although up to the very relevant pressure
ratio of 1.1 it can be stated that a sharp-edged bellmouth is marginally
inferior to a bellmouth with a Rc corner radius and that the use of a
full ‘ball’ radius is unnecessary.
The second obvious set of questions will doubtless relate to the oft-
almost any text on fluid mechanics [8] or studying the experimental
observations on the loss-creating vortices at the entry corners to
rectangular pipes [9]. Any such texts will show that the hydraulic
radius, conventionally calculated as ‘area/wetted perimeter’, for the 23
mm round pipe is D/4 or 5.75 mm but that for our selected rectangular
pipe is 5.24, a loss of some 9%. However, in Fig.17, the loss of CD for
the rectangular pipe is computed through FLUENT as no worse than
0.83% at the lowest pressure ratio. The reality of an actual CD steady
CONCLUSIONS
While the specific conclusions have already been highlighted at
each stage of the discussion above, the general conclusion might be
glibly stated that the design of an intake bellmouth is not as difficult
nor as vital to good engine breathing as might have been imagined.
On the other hand, in racing, where the last few hp per 100 hp is
the difference between winning and losing, the design exemplars
discussed above are not to be lightly ignored.

phenomenon has been seen and photographed before in high speed used rectangular intake duct shape as seen in Fig.16. In a four-valve
Schlieren image experiments conducted at QUB more than thirty years head design it is somewhat difficult to smoothly connect the twin
ago [2, pp 154-157]. There is a message here for those who install intake passages at each of the intake valves into a single round intake
fuel injectors pointing into intake bellmouths; use a “short and fat” duct and often a rectangular
bellmouth to reduce the spitback of fuel for it is the spitback of air intake duct is considered the
which propels it. effective compromise. But
is it, especially if it leads to
ANSWERING THE OBVIOUS QUESTIONS a rectangular bellmouth? In
At this point many a reader will be saying, “… is that it? …” and Fig.16 is seen a photo of just
forming a question beginning with “… what if… ? …“. To forestall many such a bellmouth and above it
an e-mail, we have examined a couple of such cases. The first obvious the CFD geometric model to
questions may well relate to the “wrap-round” radius Rc. Is it necessary? assess its CD characteristics by
How big should it be? Is it OK as a ‘half-radius’ as we show it here, or FLUENT [1].
should it be a complete ‘ball’? The answers are contained in Fig.15. The rectangular duct
The steady flow CFD analysis is conducted with three similar geometry used has an aspect
elliptical profile bellmouths but one has our common ‘half-radius’ ratio of 2:1 with four corner
as seen in Fig.5 (Rc is 3 mm), another has a full ‘ball’ radius of 3 mm radii each of 6 mm and the
that folds right back to the outside of the bellmouth. Yet another has width and height are 29.878
no radius at all but has a sharp-edged pipe end at the (common to and 14.939 mm, respectively,
all three) 46 mm entry diameter Di. The Fig.15 shows the variation giving the same area as the
from the worst case, which is the ‘zero radius case’ to the other two round 23 mm pipe used
cases, as a change of CD expressed as a percentage (%). The results for all previous CFD ‘flow Fig.16 Rectangular bellmouth design
flow measurement might show greater losses in CD for the rectangular
bellmouth as the corner vortices seen by Schlicting [9], with their
inherent rotational turbulence characteristics, always provides
Fig.18 Velocity flow profiles at a rectangular bellmouth
n
REFERENCES
[1] FLUENT Inc., Lebanon, New Hampshire, www.fluent.com
[2] G.P. Blair, “Design and Simulation of Four-Stroke Engines”, Society
of Automotive Engineers, 1998, SAE reference R-186, p813.
[3] G.P. Blair, H-B. Lau, A. Cartwright, B.D. Ragunathan, D.O.
Mackey, “Coefficients of Discharge at the Apertures of Engines”, SAE
International Off-Highway Meeting, Milwaukee, September 1995, SAE
paper no. 952138, pp 71-85.
[4] G.P. Blair, F.M. Drouin, “The Relationship between Discharge
Coefficients and the Accuracy of Engine Simulation”, SAE Motorsports
Engineering Conference and Exposition, Dearborn Michigan,
December 8-10, 1996, SAE paper no. 962527
[5] 4stHEAD design software, Prof. Blair and Associates, Belfast,
Northern Ireland, www.profblairandassociates.com.
[6] G.P. Blair, W.M. Cahoon, “Airbox Design Part 1”, Race Engine
Technology, Vol.1, No.2, 2003.
[7] G.P. Blair, W.M. Cahoon, “Airbox Design Part 2”, Race Engine
Technology, Vol.1, No.3, 2003.
[8] V.L. Streeter, “Fluid Mechanics”, McGraw Hill, New York, 1961.
[9] H. Schlichting, “Boundary Layer Theory”, McGraw Hill, New York,
1961.

40 41